DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-4, 8, 13-18, 21-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20180190731 A1 – hereinafter Park) in view of Jeong et al. (US 20180144950 A1 – hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park teaches:
A display device ([0061] – “an organic light-emitting display device” –
hereinafter ‘1’) comprising:
a first electrode (110 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “first electrode 110”) on a substrate
(100 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “substrate 100”);
a pixel defining layer (150 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “bank 150 provided on the non-
emission portion”) on the first electrode (110 – Fig. 3 shows this);
a dummy layer (151 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “first spacer 151 is provided on the bank
150”) disposed on an uppermost surface of the pixel defining layer (150 – Fig. 3 shows this);
a light emitting layer (115 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “the organic stack 115 may be of a single stack type that includes a hole injection layer HIL that is in contact with the first electrode 110, a hole transport layer HTL, a light-emitting layer EML, and an electron transport layer ETL, which are sequentially stacked one above another”) on the first electrode (110) and the dummy layer (151 – [0062] – “organic stack 115 is disposed on the first electrode 110 and the first spacer 151 so as to have a gap at sides of the first spacer 151” – Fig. 3 shows this); and
a second electrode (120 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “second electrode 120 is disposed on the organic stack 115”) on the light emitting layer (115 – Fig. 3 shows this),
wherein an angle between a lower surface of the dummy layer (151) which faces the pixel defining layer (150) and a side surface of the dummy layer (151) which is adjacent to the lower surface of the dummy layer is an acute angle.
Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein an angle (θ1 – Fig. 4 – “taper angle (θ1)”) between a lower surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LW’) of the dummy layer which faces the pixel defining layer and a side surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘S1’) of the dummy layer (310) which is adjacent to the lower surface (LW) of the dummy layer (310 – Fig. 4 – [0088] – “photoresist pattern 310” – this is interpreted as a dummy layer) is an acute angle ([0088] – “a taper angle (01) between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the photoresist pattern 310 may be in a range from about 60 degree to about 90 degree” – an acute angle is 90 degrees or less).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of a trapezoidal shape acting as a dam to prevent material from flowing into an area where it is not desired.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 2, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 2.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein the angle (θ1) between the lower surface (LW) and the side surface
(S1) of the dummy layer (310) is in a range of about 65 to about 90 degrees ([0088] – “a taper angle (01) between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the photoresist pattern 310 may be in a range from about 60 degree to about 90 degree”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a trapezoidal cross section (Fig. 3
shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein the dummy layer (310) has a width that gradually decreases in a
first direction (Fig. 4 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘DR3’) from the lower surface (LW) of the dummy layer (310) toward an upper surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘UP’) of the dummy layer (310) which faces the lower surface (LW).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a line shape in a plan view (Fig. 2
shows this).
Regarding claim 13, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. Park further teaches
wherein a portion of the light emitting layer (115) on the first
electrode (110) and a portion of the light emitting layer (115) on the dummy layer (151) are not electrically connected ([0075] – “the organic stack 115 is electrically disconnected between the first sub-pixel Sub 1 on the left side of the first spacer 151 and the second sub-pixel Sub 2 and the third sub-pixel Sub 3 on the right side of the first spacer 151” – Fig. 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 14, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 13 from which claim 14 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the light emitting layer (115) comprises:
a main light emitting layer (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘MOL’)
on the first electrode (110); and
a dummy light emitting layer (Fig. 3 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DOL’)
disposed on the dummy layer (151),
wherein the dummy light emitting layer (DOL) is separated from the main
light emitting layer (115 – Fig. 3 annotated shows this).
PNG
media_image2.png
611
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Park further teaches
wherein a portion of the second electrode (120) that overlaps the first
electrode (110) in a plan view is electrically disconnected from a portion of the second electrode (120) that overlaps the dummy layer (151) in a plan view (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 16, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 15 from which claim 16 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the second electrode comprises:
a main second electrode (120) disposed on the light emitting layer (115) to
overlap the first electrode (110); and
a dummy second electrode (Fig. 3 annotated, see above – hereinafter ‘DCE’) disposed on the light emitting layer (115) to overlap the dummy layer (151),
wherein the main second electrode (120) is electrically disconnected from the dummy second electrode (DCE – Fig. 3 annotated shows this ).
Regarding claim 17, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 17 depends. Park further teaches
further comprising:
a thin-film encapsulation layer (140 – Fig. 3 – [0081] – “encapsulator 140”) on
the second electrode (120 – Fig. 3 shows this),
wherein the thin-film encapsulation layer (140) covers a broken portion
([0074] – “an organic material is disconnected at the first spacer 151 in the process of being vapor-deposited so that at least one layer of the organic stack 115 has a gap between neighboring sub-pixels” – hereinafter ‘Gap’) of the light emitting layer (115).
Regarding claim 18, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 17 from which claim 18 depends. Park further teaches
further comprising:
a capping layer (130 – Fig. 3 – [0081] – “capping layer 130”) between the
second electrode (120 – Fig. 3 shows this) and the thin-film encapsulation layer (140),
wherein the capping layer (130) covers the broken portion (Gap) of the light emitting layer (115).
Regarding claim 21, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 21 depends. Park further teaches
wherein a portion of the second electrode (120) which is disposed
along the side surface of the dummy layer (151) has a smaller thickness than other portions of the second electrode (120 – Fig. 3 shows this).
Regarding independent claim 22, Park teaches:
A method of fabricating a display device ([0061] – “an organic light-
emitting display device” – hereinafter ‘1’), the method comprising:
forming a first electrode (110 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “first electrode 110”) on a
substrate (100 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “substrate 100”);
forming a pixel defining layer (150 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “bank 150 provided on
the non-emission portion”) on the first electrode (110 – Fig. 3 shows this);
forming a dummy layer (151 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “first spacer 151 is provided on
the bank 150”) disposed on an uppermost surface of the pixel defining layer (150 – Fig. 3 shows this);
forming a light emitting layer (115 – Fig. 3 – [0072] – “the organic stack 115
may be of a single stack type that includes a hole injection layer HIL that is in contact with the first electrode 110, a hole transport layer HTL, a light-emitting layer EML, and an electron transport layer ETL, which are sequentially stacked one above another”) on the first electrode (110) and on the dummy layer (151 – [0062] – “organic stack 115 is disposed on the first electrode 110 and the first spacer 151 so as to have a gap at sides of the first spacer 151” – Fig. 3 shows this); and
forming a second electrode (120 – Fig. 3 – [0062] – “second electrode 120 is disposed on the organic stack 115”) on the light emitting layer (115 – Fig. 3 shows this),
wherein an angle between a lower surface of the dummy layer which faces the pixel defining layer (150) and a side of the dummy layer which is adjacent to the lower surface of the dummy layer is an acute angle.
Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 22.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein an angle (θ1 – Fig. 4 – “taper angle (θ1)”) between a lower surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘LW’) of the dummy layer (310 – Fig. 4 – [0088] – “photoresist pattern 310” – this is interpreted as a dummy layer) which faces the pixel defining layer (150) and a side surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘S1’) of the dummy layer (310) which is adjacent to the lower surface (LW) of the dummy layer (310) is an acute angle ([0088] – “a taper angle (01) between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the photoresist pattern 310 may be in a range from about 60 degree to about 90 degree” – an acute angle is 90 degrees or less).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 22 from which claim 24 depends. Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 24.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein the angle (θ1) between the lower surface (LW) and the side surface
(S1) of the dummy layer (310) is in a range of about 65 to about 90 degrees ([0088] – “a taper angle (01) between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the photoresist pattern 310 may be in a range from about 60 degree to about 90 degree”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 22 from which claim 25 depends. Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 25.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein the dummy layer (310) has a trapezoidal cross section (Fig. 4 shows
this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 25 from which claim 26 depends. Park does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 26.
However, in an analogous art, Jeong teaches
wherein the dummy layer (310) has a width that gradually decreases in a
first direction (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘DR3’) from the lower surface (LW) of the dummy layer (310) toward an upper surface (Fig. 4 annotated, see below – hereinafter ‘UP’) of the dummy layer which faces the lower surface (LW).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer angle structure by Jeong into Park.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jeong in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 1.
Claims 5-7, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Jeong and Sun et al. (US 20240268159 A1 – hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 5, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a yellowish.
Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Sun teaches
has a yellowish color ([0087] – “the color of the pixel isolation structure 6 is yellow” – the pixel isolation structure is interpreted as the dummy layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer color structure by Sun into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sun in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0087] – “a black pixel isolation structure has a stronger capability to absorb light than yellow and grey pixel isolation structures, and in a case that the efficiency of light emission of the color conversion layer is to be improved, the color of the pixel isolation structure may be set as yellow or grey.”
Regarding claim 6, Park, as modified by Jeong and Sun, teaches claim 5 from which claim 6 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the pixel defining layer (150) has a light emitting area (R-EML
– Fig. 2 – [0062] – “a plurality of first to third sub-pixels Sub 1, Sub 2 and Sub 3 each having an emission portion (designated by B-EML, G-EML or R-EML in FIG. 2) and a non-emission portion surrounding the emission portion”) disposed to correspond to a portion of the light emitting layer (115) disposed on the first electrode (110), and
the dummy layer (351 – Fig. 6 – [0092] – “first spacer 351”) is disposed around the light emitting area (R-EML) in a plan view (Fig. 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Park, as modified by Jeong and Sun, teaches claim 6 from which claim 7 depends. Park further teaches
wherein
the pixel defining layer (150) defines a plurality of light emitting areas
([0062] – “a plurality of first to third sub-pixels Sub 1, Sub 2 and Sub 3 each having an emission portion (designated by B-EML, G-EML or R-EML in FIG. 2) and a non-emission portion surrounding the emission portion … first spacer 151 is provided on the bank 150 at least between the first sub-pixel Sub 1 and the second sub-pixel Sub 2”), and
at least a portion of the dummy layer (151) is disposed between adjacent
ones of the plurality of light emitting areas (R-EML) in a plan view (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 19, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 17 from which claim 19 depends. Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 5.
However, in an analogous art, Sun teaches
further comprising:
a wavelength conversion member (7 – Fig. 1 – [0074] – “color conversion layer
7”) on the thin-film encapsulation layer (4 – Fig. 1 – [0066] – “encapsulation layer 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer color structure by Sun into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sun in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 27, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 22 from which claim 27 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a yellowish color.
Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 27.
However, in an analogous art, Sun teaches
has a yellowish color ([0087] – “the color of the pixel isolation structure 6 is yellow” – the pixel isolation structure is interpreted as the dummy layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer color structure by Sun into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Sun in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 5.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Jeong and Lee (US 9627457 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a dotted shape in a plan view.
Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
a dotted shape in a plan view (Fig. 1 shows [3:62] – “spacer SP” as a
intermittent line, the spacer is interpreted as a dummy layer and the intermittent line is interpreted as a dotted shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dotted line structure by Lee into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of keeping components of separate light emitting structures separated.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 12, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the dummy layer (151) has a thickness in a range of about 1000 to about 4000 Å.
Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Lee teaches
a thickness in a range of about 1000 to about 4000 Å ([2:40-41] – “A height of the spacer may be substantially 3,000 to 7,000 Å”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the height by Lee into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Lee in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 9.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Jeong and Hwang (US 20150207094 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Hwang teaches
wherein the dummy layer (360 – Fig. 2 – [0056] – “spacer 360” – this
corresponds to a dummy layer) comprises an inorganic material ([0056] – “the spacer 360 may include at least one organic material, such as a photoresist, a polyacrylate-based resin, a polyimide-based resin, and an acryl-based resin, or an inorganic material such as a silicon oxide or a silicon nitride”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer structure by Hwang into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hwang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results [0010] – “To improve a characteristic of the display panel, when forming the thick insulating layer on the thin film transistor, a step of the via hole of the insulating layer may be high. Since the via hole has a concave shape having the high step, if another layer is arranged on the via hole, the concave shape of the via hole is transferred to that layer such that diffused reflection of external light may be generated at the concave portion. This may be recognized as a stain on the outside. Particularly, when the thickness of the layer arranged on the via hole is thick, the step of the transferred concave shape is increased such that the display defect due to the stain may be serious.”
Regarding claim 11, Park, as modified by Jeong and Hwang, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Hwang teaches
wherein the dummy layer (DML) (hwa (360) comprises at least
one of SiNx, SiOx, and SiON ([0056] – “he spacer 360 may include at least one organic material, such as a photoresist, a polyacrylate-based resin, a polyimide-based resin, and an acryl-based resin, or an inorganic material such as a silicon oxide or a silicon nitride”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the dummy layer structure by Hwang into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Hwang in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results as stated above in claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Jeong and Park (US 20250176360 A1 – hereinafter Park-360).
Regarding claim 20, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 1 from which claim 20 depends. Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 20.
However, in an analogous art, Park-360 teaches
wherein a portion of the light emitting layer (350 – Fig. 3 – [0152] – “emitting
layer 350”) which is disposed along the side surface of the dummy layer (340 – Fig. 3 – [0152] – “second spacer 340 may comprise one or more side slopes”) has a smaller thickness (“second spacer 340 may comprise one or more side slopes on which the emitting layer 350 is thinner, patchy or discontinuous”) than other portions of the light emitting layer (350).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the light emitting layer structure by Park-360 into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Park-360 in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0152] – “The transmission of leakage current through the emitting area in this region may therefore be reduced. In other words, in the region of the second spacer 340, deposition of the emitting layer 350 may be reduced such that, in use, transmission of leakage current in this region is reduced. In the region of the second spacer 340, the emitting layer 350 may not be continuous or may not be uniform.”
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Jeong and Kim et al. (US 20080266498 A1 – hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 23, Park, as modified by Jeong, teaches claim 22 from which claim 23 depends. Park further teaches
wherein the forming of the dummy layer (151) comprises:
forming an inorganic material layer by applying an inorganic material to an entire surface of the substrate which comprises the first electrode (110) and the pixel defining layer (150);
placing a photoresist pattern on the inorganic material layer; and
forming the dummy layer (151) on the uppermost surface of the pixel defining layer (152) by selectively removing the inorganic material layer using the photoresist pattern as a mask ([0085] – “Meanwhile, the bank 150, the first spacer 151 and the second spacer 152 may be formed together using a multi-tone mask or a diffraction exposure mask. In this case, the bank 150 may be integrally formed with the first spacer 151 or the second spacer 152. [0086] In some cases, the bank 150, the first spacer 151 and the second spacer 152 may be separately patterned”).
Park and Jeong do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 23.
However, in an analogous art, Kim teaches
forming an inorganic material layer ([0081] – “to form the barrier 290, an inorganic layer can be formed on the entire surfaces of the passivation layer 270 and the pixel electrode 280. The thickness H of the inorganic layer can be about 5% to 80% of the diameter R of the ball spacer 300, which will be described later. After the inorganic layer is formed, a photoresist film is formed on the entire surface of the inorganic layer. The photoresist film is patterned through a photolithography process to form a photoresist pattern having a shape corresponding to the barrier 290 on the inorganic layer. The inorganic layer is patterned using the photoresist pattern as an etch mask to form the barrier 290 on the passivation layer 270” – hereinafter ‘PRC’) by applying an inorganic material to an entire surface of the substrate which comprises the first electrode and the pixel defining layer;
placing a photoresist pattern on the inorganic material layer (PRC);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the inorganic material layer structure by Kim into Park and Jeong.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Kim in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable results of [0002] – “The present disclosure relates to a liquid crystal display (LCD) device, and more particularly, to an LCD device that can improve image quality reduction generated by spacer movement, and a manufacturing method thereof.”
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US 20150380473 A1 is cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including the dummy light emitting layer and second electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and ttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
